As a lawyer, having thoroughly reviewed the entire judgment in the matter between Odo Broni and Akosua Serwaa, I can state with confidence—and in line with my long-held position—that the plaintiff’s case was constructed upon a fundamentally defective foundation, a point the trial judge made unequivocally clear.
The court found the witnesses called by Akosua Serwaa to be lacking in credibility and notably evasive, systematically undermining their own assertions under cross-examination. Any competent legal practitioner understands that the credibility of a witness under oath is paramount; it is the bedrock upon which testimony stands or falls.
Further compounding this critical weakness were the cardinal procedural errors committed by her legal team. They failed in their duty to properly procure, authenticate, and adduce proof of the central piece of evidence: the foreign marriage certificate.
It is my firm belief that this certificate simply does not exist, which is why no credible version could be produced, even after the judge had explicitly advised them, well in advance of the trial, to ensure its proper availability.
These twin failures—a collapse in witness credibility and a profound neglect of basic procedural diligence—directly led the court to conclude that the plaintiff had failed to discharge her burden of proof, resulting in the decisive dismissal of her claim.
The judgment highlights several professional lapses in the handling of the purported German marriage certificate, which was the linchpin of the plaintiff’s claim to an exclusive, monogamous marriage.
Based on the judgment of Her Ladyship Justice Dr Dorinda Smith Arthur, the case against the plaintiff, Akosua Serwaah Fosuh, was undermined by significant inconsistencies in her witnesses’ testimony.
Key Inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s Witnesses
Georgina Osei Bonsu (Plaintiff’s Lawful Attorney):
Contradiction on Relocation Date: In her evidence-in-chief, she stated the deceased relocated to Ghana in 2013. Under cross-examination, she denied knowing the year, then admitted he had relocated at some point. This contradicted her earlier statement that the plaintiff visited the deceased in Ghana in 2011 and 2012—dates which would be impossible if he only moved in 2013.
Evasion on Marital Duties & Financial Details: When asked if the plaintiff performed marital duties while the deceased was in Ghana, she replied, “She was in Germany and the deceased was in Ghana,” implying no duties were performed. She also claimed the plaintiff stayed in Germany to pay a mortgage and loan but could provide no details—amount, date, or bank—when questioned, ultimately answering “I do not recall” or denying her own previous assertions.
Denial of Own Pleadings: She labelled a 2018 letter from the plaintiff’s lawyers (Exhibit DL1) as “fictitious,” despite the plaintiff having explicitly referenced and admitted to this letter in her own Reply to the 1st Defendant’s Statement of Defence.
Ernestina Fosuh (PW1, the Deceased’s Sister):
Self-Contradiction on D2’s Status: In her witness statement and examination-in-chief, she firmly denied that the 2nd Defendant (Priscilla Ofori) was married to her brother. However, under cross-examination, she was confronted with audio recordings (Exhibit JB2 series) where she affectionately referred to D2 as her “sweet sister-in-law” and “loving sister-in-law.” The court found her trial testimony to be an attempted denial of a relationship she had openly acknowledged.
Contradiction on Financial Burden: In her evidence-in-chief (paragraph 20), she stated the plaintiff had to remain in Germany to pay a mortgage. Under cross-examination, she denied there was any mortgage to be paid.
Evasion on the Plaintiff’s Objective: When asked if she knew the plaintiff wanted the court to declare her the only surviving spouse, PW1 first said “Yes I know,” but immediately changed her answer to “I don’t know” when the question was refined, damaging her credibility.
General Evasiveness: Both witnesses repeatedly answered questions with “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” regarding central issues they had previously deposed to, which the court interpreted as a tactic to avoid self-incrimination or exposure of contradictions.
Failure to Authenticate the Foreign Document: Counsel failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 136 and 161 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) for admitting foreign documents. The submitted marriage certificate lacked:
Certification by the German issuing authority (the marriage registrar in Bornheim).
- Subsequent authentication by the Ghana Embassy/Consulate in Germany.
Despite the court explicitly advising counsel to comply with these requirements during an earlier interlocutory hearing (28 October 2025), they failed to do so nearly a month later at the trial.
Misrepresenting the Document’s Nature: Counsel initially presented a document as the marriage certificate. When challenged, they later admitted in open court that it was merely an extract from a family book or registry diary, not the original certificate.
The “original” they produced for the court’s inspection was this same extract.
Submitting Inconsistent Documents: Two different versions of the marriage record were submitted:
Exhibit B: Purported marriage certificate signed by one official (Berchem) and dated 12 August 2025.
Document attached to Exhibit C (German Embassy letter): A similar record signed by a different official (Geis) and dated 23 October 2025.
No explanation was provided for the different signatures and dates on what were supposed to be copies of the same document, casting severe doubt on their authenticity.
Failure to Call an Expert on Foreign Law: Counsel neglected to call an expert witness—a requisite under Ghanaian law—to testify on the nature and requirements of a valid civil marriage under German law.
The court ruled that foreign law is a question of fact that must be proven by expert testimony. This failure forced the court to presume German law was the same as Ghanaian law, which then highlighted the certificate’s deficiencies (e.g., lack of spousal signatures).
Administrative Negligence: A law clerk from the plaintiff’s solicitor’s office, Richard Opare Darko, answered interrogatories on oath, claiming an authenticated certificate from the Ghana mission was attached. This was false, and the court condemned this submission of an “untruth” by a person with no personal knowledge of the facts.
Those who have been most vocal in proclaiming “the law is the law” now speak of an appeal. On what conceivable grounds are they going to appeal?
Do they intend to appeal on the basis of their own demonstrable professional incompetence, or perhaps on the foundation of their witnesses’ thoroughly discredited testimony?
The fatal blow to Akosua Serwaa’s case was, in truth, delivered by her own chosen representative. Having initiated these proceedings, she then elected to absent herself from the courtroom, delegating her defence to an attorney whose handling of the matter proved catastrophic.
The judge was brilliant.
–Chris-Vincent Agyapong